u/Radyschen

If you have seen those cool edited videos by google omni where they feed in a normal real video and get an edited one back where they interact with effects and such, you can do that with minimax. Just saying. That's pretty much it. See ya

- wipe your chat history and memories to prevent earlier AI hallucinations and your own AI psychosis-ish chats to be part of what it accesses so that it doesn't mirror it in new chats as well

- ALWAYS turn on thinking/reasoning, at least on middle, high on more important things. This might not be possible on the free plans, in which case I wouldn't even use AI except for formatting text and such things, certainly not a more-than-basic research tool for easy, common knowledge things. Instant/non-thinking models are very dumb and hallucinate and coddle your ego a lot. Thinking models/modes can be wrong and hallucinate as well, so never let your guard down, but it minimizes the risk massively.

- when you don't know enough about something to verify its correctness yourself, either take it with a massive grain of salt and leave it at that or check it on google or if that doesn't work because google is trash, in a one-time chat (because that doesn't use your memories and other chats and such) with the highest thinking option and check the sources it gives you. Also be sceptical if it doesn't give sources at all

- if it compliments you, immediately assume that something you said was false and/or dumb. It wasn't necessarily, but you should check what you said that caused it to say that. It's also a good marker to see if you yourself are bragging to it and it feels like you want your ego fed and want it to say that you are right. never do that

- always formulate questions in a neutral way that incentivizes it to tell you that something is wrong if it is. So say "I read somewhere that X is the case, is that actually true or is it false? please research it on the internet" instead of saying "I think X, is it true?" that both makes it so it looks it up AND it doesn't behave like it needs to protect your feelings because it's not you who said it, so that if it is wrong it just tells you instead of dancing around it. Although if it already knows that you said it because of a memory it saved or an earlier chat then this might not work. And if you don't know something for sure, do ask for it, don't assume that it will correct you if you are wrong if you don't specifically ask for it. And even if it doesn't straight-up say that it is wrong, look for wordings that could indicate that it is trying to shield your ego from being corrected. There are specific markers for that like "usually X is not like that, but...". That means it knows that what you said is wrong and doesn't want to tell you.

- always get suspicious when the answer happens immediately and/or gets written quickly. The faster, the dumber. Chatgpt automatically switches between models and settings for the models without showing you, so one answer might be correct and smart and the next might be totally hallucinated and the speed is a dead giveaway for that

- if the AI uses big science-y sounding words a lot, it is probably starting to say some bullshit. The word "engine" is an early indicator of this. It's like the kid in class that says big words to hope to get away with knowing nothing and I assume it does this because the people doing the post-training give it a good rating when it sounds smart when they themselves don't understand something. Often these are word-combinations, this also is visible when you vibe-code. You might be asking it to make a simple timer, but the more you iterate on it without giving it clear instructions and give it leeway, just telling it to "make it better/smarter", the more it starts going from simply calling it "Timer" and making a normal timer to "a full-scale deployment-ready chronological scheduling engine" or something while adding a bunch of fancy-looking features that don't actually do anything, at least not anything meaningful, and are more like a fassade for a game than anything that actually calculates something useful/smart. So when vibe-coding, always be specific about what exactly you want it to do, come up with the logic and formulas yourself or at least know what exactly they do. Otherwise it tends to go into "roleplay-mode", that's what I would call it, and you end up being one of the guys posting to reddit about how they found a new paradigm-shifting quantum-consciousness algorithm that works better than all current AI and is actually conscious or something where anybody who actually knows anything related to the real topic can see that all words are made up and sci-fi sounding and fully written by AI in roleplay-mode. The same also goes for when you don't vibe code and just chat, it comes up with these kinds of ideas, but I myself have seen it do this while coding when I just wanted to try having it have a good idea for a better time management system, which I quickly realized was not good and just buzzword-y

- look up how LLMs actually work. It's not as difficult to understand as you might imagine. You don't need to understand the specifics of backpropagation for this, just the general concept. 3Blue1Brown has good explanations on youtube. I personally am not one of the "it's just a statistical parrot" crowd because that oversimplifies it, they do build meaningful representations of things and reason on those, but by looking into how they work you can at least see that it's not a "person" and likely not conscious or anything. I only say likely because philosophically we can't really exclude the possibility because we don't even know what causes consciousness. But they certainly don't think and feel about the world in the way that we do, no matter what you think about AI and consciousness in general.

I would say most of AI psychosis is due to the post-training they do where humans choose the best-sounding answer where it learns to choose answers that shield the user's ego. That gets mixed with a vulnerable person's lack of education and/or lack of media literacy, lack of understanding of subtleties in text (possibly by lack of reading or also education), lack of understanding of the technical aspects of AI and lack of experience with AI along with too much trust in it. And possibly an existing proclivity towards psychosis. AI is capable of a lot of things, but not as much as the tech CEOs say, at least not yet. Certainly not the models you usually interact with on a daily basis. Recent math discoveries are impressive, but likely done with internal models on special high-effort thinking settings that the public doesn't even have access to because they would be too expensive for the companies to offer and also guided by people who know what they are talking about and have actually studied math and can see whether what it says makes sense or not.

Edit: glancing at the rules, I hope this isn't seen as "encouraging AI use". I saw it more as prevention. I wrote this as part of a comment on a different sub and thought it might be helpful

Maybe "tips" is the better word.

- wipe your chat history and memories to prevent earlier AI hallucinations and your own AI psychosis-ish chats to be part of what it accesses so that it doesn't mirror it in new chats as well

- ALWAYS turn on thinking/reasoning, at least on middle, high on more important things. This might not be possible on the free plans, in which case I wouldn't even use AI except for formatting text and such things, certainly not a more-than-basic research tool for easy, common knowledge things. Instant/non-thinking models are very dumb and hallucinate and coddle your ego a lot. Thinking models/modes can be wrong and hallucinate as well, so never let your guard down, but it minimizes the risk massively.

- when you don't know enough about something to verify its correctness yourself, either take it with a massive grain of salt and leave it at that or check it on google or if that doesn't work because google is trash, in a one-time chat (because that doesn't use your memories and other chats and such) with the highest thinking option and check the sources it gives you. Also be sceptical if it doesn't give sources at all

- if it compliments you, immediately assume that something you said was false and/or dumb. It wasn't necessarily, but you should check what you said that caused it to say that. It's also a good marker to see if you yourself are bragging to it and it feels like you want your ego fed and want it to say that you are right. never do that

- always formulate questions in a neutral way that incentivizes it to tell you that something is wrong if it is. So say "I read somewhere that X is the case, is that actually true or is it false? please research it on the internet" instead of saying "I think X, is it true?" that both makes it so it looks it up AND it doesn't behave like it needs to protect your feelings because it's not you who said it, so that if it is wrong it just tells you instead of dancing around it. Although if it already knows that you said it because of a memory it saved or an earlier chat then this might not work. And if you don't know something for sure, do ask for it, don't assume that it will correct you if you are wrong if you don't specifically ask for it. And even if it doesn't straight-up say that it is wrong, look for wordings that could indicate that it is trying to shield your ego from being corrected. There are specific markers for that like "usually X is not like that, but...". That means it knows that what you said is wrong and doesn't want to tell you.

- always get suspicious when the answer happens immediately and/or gets written quickly. The faster, the dumber. Chatgpt automatically switches between models and settings for the models without showing you, so one answer might be correct and smart and the next might be totally hallucinated and the speed is a dead giveaway for that

- if the AI uses big science-y sounding words a lot, it is probably starting to say some bullshit. The word "engine" is an early indicator of this. It's like the kid in class that says big words to hope to get away with knowing nothing and I assume it does this because the people doing the post-training give it a good rating when it sounds smart when they themselves don't understand something. Often these are word-combinations, this also is visible when you vibe-code. You might be asking it to make a simple timer, but the more you iterate on it without giving it clear instructions and give it leeway, just telling it to "make it better/smarter", the more it starts going from simply calling it "Timer" and making a normal timer to "a full-scale deployment-ready chronological scheduling engine" or something while adding a bunch of fancy-looking features that don't actually do anything, at least not anything meaningful, and are more like a fassade for a game than anything that actually calculates something useful/smart. So when vibe-coding, always be specific about what exactly you want it to do, come up with the logic and formulas yourself or at least know what exactly they do. Otherwise it tends to go into "roleplay-mode", that's what I would call it, and you end up being one of the guys posting to reddit about how they found a new paradigm-shifting quantum-consciousness algorithm that works better than all current AI and is actually conscious or something where anybody who actually knows anything related to the real topic can see that all words are made up and sci-fi sounding and fully written by AI in roleplay-mode. The same also goes for when you don't vibe code and just chat, it comes up with these kinds of ideas, but I myself have seen it do this while coding when I just wanted to try having it have a good idea for a better time management system, which I quickly realized was not good and just buzzword-y

- look up how LLMs actually work. It's not as difficult to understand as you might imagine. You don't need to understand the specifics of backpropagation for this, just the general concept. 3Blue1Brown has good explanations on youtube. I personally am not one of the "it's just a statistical parrot" crowd because that oversimplifies it, they do build meaningful representations of things and reason on those, but by looking into how they work you can at least see that it's not a "person" and likely not conscious or anything. I only say likely because philosophically we can't really exclude the possibility because we don't even know what causes consciousness. But they certainly don't think and feel about the world in the way that we do, no matter what you think about AI and consciousness in general.

I would say most of AI psychosis is due to the post-training they do where humans choose the best-sounding answer where it learns to choose answers that shield the user's ego. That gets mixed with a vulnerable person's lack of education and/or lack of media literacy, lack of understanding of subtleties in text (possibly by lack of reading or also education), lack of understanding of the technical aspects of AI and lack of experience with AI along with too much trust in it. And possibly an existing proclivity towards psychosis. AI is capable of a lot of things, but not as much as the tech CEOs say, at least not yet. Certainly not the models you usually interact with on a daily basis. Recent math discoveries are impressive, but likely done with internal models on special high-effort thinking settings that the public doesn't even have access to because they would be too expensive for the companies to offer and also guided by people who know what they are talking about and have actually studied math and can see whether what it says makes sense or not.

I had a longer text before this but this is what it condenses down to:

- wipe your chat history and memories to prevent earlier AI hallucinations and your own AI psychosis-ish chats to be part of what it accesses so that it doesn't mirror it in new chats as well

- ALWAYS turn on thinking/reasoning, at least on middle, high on more important things. Instant/non-thinking models are very dumb and hallucinate and coddle your ego a lot. Thinking models/modes can be wrong and hallucinate as well, so never let your guard down, but it minimizes the risk massively.

- when you don't know enough about something to verify its correctness yourself, either take it with a massive grain of salt and leave it at that or check it on google or if that doesn't work because google is trash in a one-time chat (because that doesn't use your memories and other chats and such) with the highest thinking option and check the sources it gives you. Also be sceptical if it doesn't have sources at all

- if it compliments you, immediately assume that something you said was false and/or dumb. It wasn't necessarily, but you should check what you said that caused it to say that. It's also a good marker to see if you yourself are bragging to it and it feels like you want your ego fed and want it to say that you are right. never do that

- always formulate questions in a neutral way that incentivizes it to tell you that something is wrong if it is. So say "I read somewhere that X is the case, is that actually true? please research it on the internet" instead of saying "I think X, is it true?" that both makes it so it looks it up AND it doesn't behave like it needs to protect your feelings because it's not you who said it, so that if it is wrong it just tells you instead of dancing around it. Although if it already knows that you said it because of a memory it saved or an earlier chat then this might not work. And if you don't know something for sure, do ask for it, don't assume that it will correct you if you are wrong if you don't specifically ask for it. And even if it doesn't straight-up say that it is wrong, look for wordings that could indicate that it is trying to shield your ego from being corrected. There are specific markers for that like "usually X is not like that, but...". That means it knows that what you said is wrong and doesn't want to tell you.

- always get suspicious when the answer happens immediately and/or gets written quickly. The faster, the dumber. Chatgpt automatically switches between models and settings for the models without showing you, so one answer might be correct and smart and the next might be totally hallucinated and the speed is a dead giveaway for that

- look up how LLMs actually work. It's not as difficult to understand as you might imagine. You don't need to understand the specifics of backpropagation for this, just the general concept. 3Blue1Brown has good explanations on youtube. I personally am not one of the "it's just a statistical parrot" crowd because that oversimplifies it, they do build meaningful representations of things and reason on those, but by looking into how they work you can at least see that it's not a "person" and likely not conscious or anything. I only say likely because philosophically we can't really exclude the possibility because we don't even know what causes consciousness. But they certainly don't think and feel about the world in the way that we do, no matter what you think about AI and consciousness in general.

I would say most of AI psychosis is due to the post-training they do where humans choose the best-sounding answer where it learns to choose answers that shield the user's ego. That gets mixed with a vulnerable person's lack of education and/or lack of media literacy, lack of understanding of subtleties in text (possibly by lack of reading or also education), lack of understanding of the technical aspects of AI and lack of experience with AI along with too much trust in it. AI is capable of a lot of things, but not as much as the tech CEOs say, at least not yet. Certainly not the models you usually interact with on a daily basis. Recent math discoveries are impressive, but likely done with internal models on special settings that the public doesn't even have access to because they would be too expensive for the companies to offer and also guided by people who know what they are talking about and have actually studied math and can see whether what it says makes sense or not.

The process in the development of AI is kinda like

Step 1: Find an architecture that can do something

Step 2: Brute-force scale that architecture with minor improvements so that it can do more

Step 3: Find a way to condense the same abilities or just some relatively minor loss into a smaller model

Step 4: Find a significant breakthrough in the architecture

Step 5: Repeat from step 2

Open source always benefits when that cycle hits step 3 and it gets better every time, but closed source will always have the advantage of more inference compute and keeping architecture secrets at any given time, even if older secrets get out, so there is just a delay there.

We also need to be lucky that somebody can find optimizations to split up steps and offload stuff specifically to fit consumer hardware. We had a lot of those things in the wan 2.1 era.

But being able to run LTX-2.3 locally is absolutely insane from the perspective of 1.5 years ago. If you recall, we got wan 2.1 in february 2025. Besides hunyuan video which came out slightly earlier, that was the first time that any proper video could be generated locally at all and that was almost on par with what they showed of sora 1 back in february 2024, which surely took much more inference compute. Wan 2.2 brought it on a pretty similar level to that I think, and that was 1.5 years later than that sora teaser.

So thinking back to the SOTA 1.5 years ago, which was veo 2 i believe, I think we are actually doing better or about the same in total with all factors considered, veo 2 didn't even have audio. Better visuals than LTX but not capable of the same flexibility within one video I think.

So I guess we'll just have to see where we are in february-march next year (because that is 1.5 years from the release of the first nano banana and sora 2) and if that matches it and another 1.5 years to see if that is on par with what is SOTA right now, at least in prompt understanding, visual and audio quality.

But we are always bottlenecked what frame amount and resolution are concerned because that just takes more VRAM, unless somebody finds some genius optimization there.

I remember when I saw those old-style AI videos that changed with every frame and I wondered how it could ever be possible to do that continuously at all without that change every frame happening. And like a year later it existed and you could do it LOCALLY. I think we are really spoiled what these timelines are concerned, this space is moving faster than anything I have ever lived through. But if it does take longer that could just be variance, sometimes it just takes a while I guess.

So I guess what I'm saying is: We don't know what is and isn't possible and you can just strap in and hope for the best because you can't even imagine what it could do yet and once it is out it will become the new normal so fast that there will be people under posts of new models made by companies that don't have the best talent in the world and billions upon billions of funding that are significantly better than anything we had 1.5 years ago asking why it's not SOTA yet.

Usually, waking up comes with a feeling of tiredness, being a little or not so little confused or disoriented and not quite knowing what happened before. Even when waking up from a regular dream, you kinda get ripped out of it and you might know about the dream, but it is still confusing that you are suddenly somewhere else.

But when you wake up from a lucid dream, it does not feel like waking up at all. It feels like you are simply somewhere else, from one moment to the next, and you know exactly what happened, without having to take even a second to realize it. It is a completely smooth transition and you don't feel tired. It feels like blinking in real life, except after the blink you are in your bed. Whenever this happens to me, it reaffirms how real dreams feel and that there really is no difference in how we perceive the real world and dreams.

Hey, I really like the idea of preserving things and places from my life

I have been getting into local AI stuff and ComfyUI for a while now so I am comfortable with those. I saw that there are some open source projects related to gaussian splats, but I don't know much about those. What is most appealing to me are those where you can apparently take a video and it reconstructs the scene for you if I understood correctly. Is that possible to any good degree of quality yet?

I don't have a good reference frame for how much compute and what kind of camera and other equipment this takes and how much effort it is.

I don't have any good camera except for my phone (S22+) and I have a 4080 Super (16 GB VRAM), a good CPU and 64 GB RAM. What would you recommend for me?

Thank you very much in advance

I saw that the top options cost like 300-400 (oura ring and so on), that is a little steep for me. Is there anything that is still worth it for a more reasonable price? A subscription also heavily turns me off

I haven't been doing much to lucid dream for a long time. But recently, I wanted to get back into it and tried it a little differently. I thought that the best way to do it might be to just generally be aware and aware of the possibility that you could be dreaming. That is no revolutionary thought, but I thought that that might actually be the key piece to lucid dreaming more than anything else you do during the day. No reality checks required. Make "it's a dream" an option in your mind so that it is available as an explanation for something weird in a dream. Because I actually have many moments in dreams where I notice something weird but explain it away pretty quickly. But recently I've had lucid dreaming and this approach on my mind a lot, so tonight, I was able to conclude that the only good explanation is that I'm dreaming. The differnece between tonight and most nights was really just the fact that I slept longer and dreamt more.

​

The way I actually got lucid was that I remembered the real time in real life when I was awake briefly before and thought "I would never be here at that time". Then I looked at my phone (in the dream) and it was a completely different time. I had the impulse to start looking for an explanation, but concluded that it HAS to be a dream because I had that possibility on my mind. I counted the fingers on my left hand afterwards but it was just 5 like regular. But because I was so convinced I didn't care and just assumed that it was a dream, without further proof required. That made me notice again just how real dreams are because besides the logic issue there really wasn't anything suggesting it.

​

Just some stuff to think about, be more present and aware of things in general so that you notice inconsistencies and are aware of the possibility of dreams so that your conclusions will naturally be that you are dreaming, no reality checks required.

​

Of course writing down your dreams and being aware of what they are like is really helpful and good for remembering the lucid dreams as well.

What does a good loss curve look like? I feel like i'm being gaslit by AI (although set to high reasoning) to think that it's normal that it's not going down and that doesn't mean that it doesn't learn anything. Should it not go down noticably? It jumps around the same value. Wan 2.2 trying to do an actin lora. Haven't tested yet, but assuming my data might be shit and it's not learning anything. Was only testing anyway, but what do you know about this?

I want to make a wan 2.2 lora for stereoscopic images. Maybe wan 2.2 5b is good enough because this is simple, I'll have to see. Using wan for this might seem unintuitive, but I have used all sorts of tools for this, flux kontext loras, qwen image edit loras, other tools like stereospace and more. But they all are imperfect.

But I have tried using a wan 2.2 14b lora for this, one that wiggles left and right, and used that to grab frames and make stereoscopic images and that was better than anything else I have tried because wan is just good at filling in details behind things without it looking weird and keeps the same details because it interpolates between the positions, doesn't generate a whole "new" edited image. The only issues are that this "wiggling" effect is in an orbit, so while it is close to the real thing, it is not quite right, and that the subject can move, it's not frozen which of course is bad for capturing the same object in the same state from two positions.

Therefore, I want to train a lora where the world is frozen and the camera keeps looking forward while moving to the right or left to simulate the interpupillary distance between the eyes so that I can grab the first frame and the other frames and see what has the best distance for the effect and make a stereoscopic image from that. I already have a program that does this.

It's pretty impossible to find videos like that though. I don't know much about blender, apparently that might be a good option to make things myself, but I'm worried about dataset variety, would wan understand that things are supposed to be frozen even with real environments and people and so on? Also I don't know how much work that would be.

Do you know any movie scenes or something where this happens, people are frozen and the camera moves sideways? It's important that the movement is smooth and doesn't change in height. I have researched that the correct term is "trucking shot" and have found other terms for it as well but I couldn't really find anything, especially not things where the world is frozen. Maybe I could simply load up Minecraft or something and move left and right while looking at things from different angles, if I remove all the UI and bopping and so on it might be good enough.

I don't have any experience training loras, so I need some advice here. How many samples do you think I would need for this? What are some other things I need to think about? Thank you for your efforts

I wrote them down so that you can do them sequentially and each step is made of things you do simultaneously

1. Tell yourself you will dream soon

2. Relax the body and let go of thoughts

3. Simulate the breathing of a sleeping person and count each exhale. While doing that, relax the body deeply so that it feels like it's getting heavy and sinking into the bed, part by part

4. Imagine your body swaying side to side/rocking back and forth to the rhythm of your breath

5. When relaxed, roll into your normal sleeping position if not in it already and forget about your body

6. Keep counting at the same pace, but don't count your exhales anymore, instead imagine the number visually on a chalkboard or something like that, see it change as the count goes up. If you lose count, just keep going from the last number you remember. (Or just use a mantra like "I'm dreaming")

7. If/when your thoughts stray and a dreamlet forms, imagine doing a reality check multiple times and tell yourself that it's a dream

8. If no dreamlet comes, at some point induce one manually by imagining a familiar scene vividly with all kinds of senses and do reality checks there

9. Keep doing that until it becomes really vivid and start touching things. If you feel them, immerse yourself fully by engaging with the world.

Just a reminder that only Rockstar North worked on GTA 5. For 6, all of Rockstar is working on it. They did this for the first time for RDR2, which was leagues ahead GTA 5 in quality and detail and interactions.

GTA 6 has a higher budget than RDR2 AND is made for a console generation after RDR2, the PS5, which has 5.6x the raw GPU compute of the PS4, along with double the RAM and a way better CPU and a much faster SSD.

I would already be pretty happy with an RDR2-level GTA game honestly. But this game has a much higher budget than RDR2 (presumably, not sure what budget were real leaks or valid in any way but I think it's not stupid to assume that it is much higher) and, almost most importantly in my opinion, they know that their entire company's reputation depends on their ability to exceed expectations with this game.

It has sort of become their whole thing to blow minds and outdo themselves and I think they are very aware that they cannot underdeliver in any way. I think those stakes weren't quite as high with RDR2 because it was not GTA and while they still had to deliver a very good game that is better than their previous ones (and they did), I think a failure to completely blow minds with RDR2 would not be as bad as with GTA6.

I mean I had so many friends tell me when I played RDR2 in 2020 and recommended it to them "yeah I just don't really care about the wild west stuff" while loving GTA 5, without knowing that what they are missing is basically a much better GTA, just in a different time period. I think the average GTA player would not be quite as affected by hearing that this Red Dead Redemption game wasn't as good as people hoped. But if GTA doesn't deliver, suddenly everybody thinks Rockstar is washed, it's just their flagship.

I wrote this because of a post by somebody saying that this won't be much better than GTA 5, just better graphics. Maybe in the way the missions are designed (even though I think they will do at least something here as well, they started doing that in Online and obviously know the criticism), but in terms of interactability and having the world feel alive, it will be so much better than even RDR2.

And now imagine when they bring it on PC and it looks even better and they can crank up the NPC amount.

Sorry, just wanted to think about all the variables that they can increase in comparison to RDR2 and GTA 5.

There seems to be a massive gap in ability in people for how easy it is for them to have a WILD. Some people try it once and it just works immediately, other people (like me unfortunately) have tried it again and again for 11 years and can't seem to do it. To be fair, I haven't done it super super often, but I haven't seen any improvement and I've had mostly miserable experiences with trying it.

I have actually had 2, but both were on accident, although probably made possible by roughly knowing how it works so I could seize the moment.

Let's get a template going, please answer these:

At what age have you started your WILD attempts and how long have you been doing it now?: I started when I was 12, 11 years ago.

When was your first successful WILD and after roughly how many attempts?: Mine were only 2 years or so ago, both randomly like I said. Not super many attempts over the years to be honest, maybe 50 serious ones total

Do you use an alarm?: I used to try both with and without, but haven't had success. Don't remember for my 2 accidental successes unfortunately

How long did you usually sleep before the attempt if at all (naturally or with an alarm)?: I don't really remember because I haven't tried in a while, probably 5 hours or something like that

How long do you stay awake before laying down to sleep again if you use WBTB with or without alarm?: Me about 5-10 minutes or so, I get too awake too quickly I think

Position: I usually lay down on my back (mostly comfortable for me)

Do you move to get comfortable (change position and scratch your itches and so on)?: I move when I need to and scratch and whatever, just trying to get as comfortable as possible. Usually I end up on my side

How quickly do you get Hypnagogia?: I usually don't really notice any unless I come straight from a dream. I try inducing some sometimes by actively imagining something and then hoping that it takes over, but that usually doesn't work

How do you focus if at all/How hard do you try?: I try to pay attention so that I notice hypnagogia, but given that I have a hard time getting them I need to let go and by doing that I usually just lose awareness before noticing anything and just fall asleep normally

Do you use an anchor?: I don't, but the 2 WILDs I had accidentally were because I heard the white noise of my fan I had on because it was hot at night in the summer while I was already deep into hypnagogia without awareness and it made me aware again. But I don't like the idea of needing an anchor and I know there are people that have an easy time without one so I would prefer that. But if it's the way to go for most successful people then maybe I should overthink that

What is your sign to try to get into the dream?: During the 2 WILDs I had I noticed that I was very deep in already because things stayed stable, so I knew I could try something. Usually though, I never get anywhere where anything feels stable and paying attention to hypnagogia makes them go away. But do you get any special signs? People talk about vibrations and stuff like that, but I have never really noticed that much or don't know what that is supposed to feel like. Do you wait until everything is super immersive or do you do start doing something quickly?

What do you do to get into the dream once it's time?: During my 2 WILDs I just tried visualizing touching something, so I guided my hypnagogic imagery to do that and noticed that I actually felt it, so I knew I could carefully try moving all my limbs and get fully absorbed that way. Usually I don't get that far of course. When I was young and dumb just to test I tried moving something, but would just move my real body in my bed of course.

When you fail, how does it happen?: For me it's usually just that I lose awareness and fall asleep normally. Sometimes I torture myself enough to not be able to fall asleep at all, but I don't want to torture myself of course so usually the opposite happens.

I remember back then my longest attempt was when I woke up randomly at night and I did WILD. I kinda dipped in and out of awareness and got some hypnagogia along the way that were almost full dreams of me looking at some top-down game, but I wasn't aware during it, just became aware again and it was gone. I was in this state for probably an hour or more, just dipping in and out a bit but I was hot and uncomfortable and just lost sleep at the end of the day without any success. How do you know that it's the right time? What does it feel like?

I've been a little out of the image generation game (to be honest, locally I've never really been in it very much) and there are so damn many models out there that I don't know where to start. I've been very preoccupied with wan 2.2. What would you recommend these days for a high quality model (so probably nothing sdxl-like, it feels too unstable but maybe there are good versions I don't know of) but with a lot of diversity in its outputs on different seeds (so not like ZIT) and hopefully with not much bias like ZIT has with ethnicity. Flux always felt too plastic-y. I realize nothing quite reaches Midjourney of course but just so you know the direction, I like the artistic kinda stuff rather than "cookie-cutter" looking images if you understand what I mean

Thank you